I think that you miss the point, Jack. Pete, and his fellow fundamentalists, believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' - which is contained within the pages of the Bible. They make the (wilful?) mistake of choosing to believe that science expresses a competing form of absolute truth - which, of course, it doesn't because all scientific findings are, in a sense, provisional (new discoveries have often led to new perspectives on earlier findings). But if the Bible got the 'truth' about camels wrong then it can't represent absolute truth, can it? Doesn't matter if the camels were hiding somewhere! By emphasising the anachronistic camels, I'm only playing by pete's rules. Get out of that, pete!

"Anachronistic camels"! Now there's a phrase I don't get to write every day!